Mozilla Firefox 116 Now Available - Capable Of Wayland-Only Builds

[elatllat]

Audacity is the only app I use and know of that needs X11. May X11 RIP soon.

[Myownfriend]

How's limiting freedom become "interesting"? A pure Wayland Firefox build is not any "faster" or "better" than the one which supports X11 as well. Oh, it will save you a hundred of kilobytes of code. At the same time:

$ du -hs /opt/firefox
224M /opt/firefox

That's the official Firefox 116 x86-64 Linux build. Yeah, that's really something ... I mean absolutely nothing to talk about.

It's an new option, dumbass. How is that limiting freedom. It's literally adding a choice.

[timrichardson]

People opposed to this are probably worried by the implication that X11 builds are now easier to deprecate. But surely it is obvious that X11 will one day go away? That day is a few years away. But it's coming.

[Finity]

That reminds me, is Mozilla doing Linux ARM builds of Firefox yet? They've been doing Windows ARM builds for quite a while now, but no Linux option available at least when my PinePhone was still functional. I wanted to run Firefox in flatpaks, and I still want to when I get anther PinePhone.

[Myownfriend]

AFAIK Firefox Wayland and Xorg code paths are completely distinct. I don't think pure builds could possibly help improve Firefox. Even without "pure" builds Firefox still has a ton of Wayland issues to resolve: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635134

You don't program so of course you don't see how it could help.

[mrg666]

Good to have a build without X11 baggage.

[andyprough]

It's an new option, dumbass. How is that limiting freedom. It's literally adding a choice.

Your new extra super special "freedom" option is that you don't get even the possibility to use the display server you've been using for the past 39 years? And that if you are on older hardware you are pretty much crap out of luck unless you buy a new computer? I think avis may have a good point. And what about window manager users like myself on DWM? We should just shove off and die already I guess?

Besides, don't be so mean to avis, this is a brand new user that hasn't even been with us 8 full months, and doesn't know anything about trolling or about how we can appear rude in our responses to people even though we only wish them the best. You might scare avis away if you keep talking like that, the poor dear.

[Myownfriend]

Besides, don't be so mean to avis, this is a brand new user that hasn't even been with us 8 full months, and doesn't know anything about trolling or about how we can appear rude in our responses to people even though we only wish them the best. You might scare avis away if you keep talking like that, the poor dear.

You're right. I should save me rudeness for trolls who evade bans by creating a new account the day of their ban.

[Healer_LFG]

How's limiting freedom become "interesting"? A pure Wayland Firefox build is not any "faster" or "better" than the one which supports X11 as well. Oh, it will save you a hundred of kilobytes of code.

I think I see what you're getting at, but I don't think I agree.

It's *adding* (not *replacing*) the ability to build wayland only, and X Only. I don't see anything about them removing the current ability to build a binary that's still compatible with both at the same time.

I'm interpreting your point as (and please, clarify if I'm wrong) "It could create situations where a user may need to run Wayland apps or X apps, and can't because their build was built for ONLY the other one".

If that's your point, I think the place to direct that (valid) criticism would be to the packagers for whatever distro decides to ship an X only or Wayland distro.

[andyprough]

You're right. I should save me rudeness for trolls who evade bans by creating a new account the day of their ban.

Purely coincidental, I'm sure.